There is no “genetic entropy” issue, so I doubt Marks or the lab will ba addressing it.

Think about it. If God created the earth an all that is in it 6000 years ago, and then all that was in it were wiped out save the few on the ark, all current diversity must be explained as either new creations of God or as having descended from those who survived the flood on the ark.

:D

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

What on earth makes you think anyone will bother dissecting Carrol’s “review”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Behe’s book. If Behe had written a book about network architecture or parallel processing then Carrol would be in a position to review it. Or even if his review were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.

What on earth makes you think I will bother dissecting DaveTards “post”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Chu-Carol's review. If Chu-Carol had written a review about eating crayons or being the biggest tard evaaaah then DaveTard would be in a position to review it. Or even if his post were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.

Davescott clearly isn't qualified to judge much of anything about compiler design. It is, in fact, an extremely mathematical field of computer science. You see, what you do working on an optimizing compiler is that to figure out what information is expressed in the static semantics of a program, and then use that to do performance-improving transformations transformations that provably don't alter program semantics. It's a field which is highly dependent on things like lattice theory, domain theory, graph theory, and denotational semantics. Parallel compilation also generally involves a fair bit of linear algebra and sometimes vector analysis.

What's more, if Davescott had bothered to find out a teeny tiny bit about my dissertation, he would found that the main contribution of it is something called the parallel continuation graph: a mathematical representation of parallel computation in terms of a š-calculus inspired variation of continuation-passing form compilation. The neat thing about the PCG is that many parallel performance optimizations could be expressed via simple graph restructurings. I'm quite proud of that dissertation; I still think the PCG is incredibly cool. And I challenge anyone to argue that proving that the transformation of source code into the PCG was semantically valid, and the proofs of the validities of graph-based program transformations was "very little in the way of math".

Quote

For someone who's been in commercial computer R&D for over 10 years Carroll's patent portfolio (2 patents, sole inventor on one of those) is abysmal especially for an uber patent-house like IBM where he spent most of his time so far. He's got a fair number of journal publications but that's a metric for academicians not industry. Both the patents were in client-server networking i.e. zero math content. I generated twice that many patents in half the time and I was just a non-degreed senior systems engineer. Even that was still short of my performance plan target which called for being a named inventor on two patent submissions per year.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Industry actually quite likes publications. The mantra at IBM was that there are three things that IBM wants to see from researchers: papers, patents, and products. To be successful, you need to be generating at least two. I was mostly a papers and products guy. (Personally, I don't like software patents; 14 year monopolies on software concepts seems completely unreasonable to me, so I didn't file them unless I had to. You see, DaveScott, some of us have this quaint idea about this thing called "ethics". I realize that's probably a foreign idea to someone who works on a DI site.)

What's funny about this is that once again, Davescott blows it by not bothering to read. Because the second of those two patents - granted 1 week before I left IBM - is on search: source code search optimization based on a kind of multidimensional vector analysis. You assign program fragments to locations in a many-dimensional search space, and then find things that are close to a particular search vector. (And why the patent there? Because there are so many patents in IR that you have to file as a matter of self-protection, to establish when you did the work, so that you'll have a defense if someone else tries to file a patent that overlaps with it.) So in his attempt to smear me as unqualified of judging a mathematical argument based on search, he specifically mentions my work on search. Not super bright, Dave.

I just had a free association based on this closer. It caused me to leap from DaveScot to Super Dave Osborne.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Super Dave is supposedly an "accomplished" stuntman, though he rarely succeeds when performing the stunts depicted onscreen. His signature is to perform outrageous daredevil stunts which invariably go awry and result in his grievous injury.

Surely, I am not the first person to make this connection?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Super Dave Osborne is a character created and played by comedian Bob Einstein. He is an inept, greedy and self-absorbed stuntman who is frequently injured when his stunts go wrong.

That does sound like our Dave.

Yeah....Here is you big chance dt/de..vout.

Juggling chainsaws standing in the back of of your moving speed boat while adjusting the carburettor with your foot and directing your wifes banco team watersking in a pyramid formation....pass the cheesy poofs.

That should equal all your other great achievments like working for the worlds worst laptop company.

What on earth makes you think anyone will bother dissecting Carrol’s “review”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Behe’s book. If Behe had written a book about network architecture or parallel processing then Carrol would be in a position to review it. Or even if his review were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.

What on earth makes you think I will bother dissecting DaveTards “post”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Chu-Carol's review. If Chu-Carol had written a review about eating crayons or being the biggest tard evaaaah then DaveTard would be in a position to review it. Or even if his post were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.

I'm sure it's been remarked on already, but it's amusing that they're complaining about Mark CC's supposed lack of credentials in math, thereby somehow invalidating his criticism of Behe's book.

To them it seems, the credentials thing is of paramount importance, except when it's an ID-supporting biochemist making the mathematical argument to begin with.

I'm off to the hospital now. My irony meter exploded, and I need to have the shrapnel removed.

Carrol is quite comparable to me and I don’t feel anywhere near qualified to write a critical review of Behe’s book. Carrol’s hubris is laughable. A blogging blowhard extraordinaire. Wake me up when someone credible writes a review in a venue more trustworthy than a personal blog. In the meantime you and Carrol both bore me so put a sock in it

Bwhahahahahaah. New lamp for your projector there blowhard DS?

Even the clowns at UD are asking where they can read a refutation of Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review.

Quote

s there anywhere I can read a rebuttal of Carrol’s (or a similar) argument, or an explanation of why he is misrepresenting Behe?

Well, it will not be on UD that's for sure!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Carrol is quite comparable to me and I don’t feel anywhere near qualified to write a critical review of Behe’s book. Carrol’s hubris is laughable. A blogging blowhard extraordinaire. Wake me up when someone credible writes a review in a venue more trustworthy than a personal blog. In the meantime you and Carrol both bore me so put a sock in it

Bwhahahahahaah. New lamp for your projector there blowhard DS?

Even the clowns at UD are asking where they can read a refutation of Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review.

Quote

s there anywhere I can read a rebuttal of Carrol’s (or a similar) argument, or an explanation of why he is misrepresenting Behe?

Since you have Behe’s book why don’t you write a review of Carrol’s review?

If you think you’re not qualified then that is precisely the point. To critique Carrol’s critique one should be qualified to critique the original work....The fact that they used a blog loudmouth/computer science expert to review the work of a biochemist in the field of biochemistry looks suspiciously like the book can’t be criticized by an expert in biochemistry.

(Rubs eyes) Did he really just say that?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereā€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I suggest we wait for a review written by one of Behe’s peers to be published in a peer reviewed trade journal and not bother responding to unqualified hatchet jobs published on personal blogs.

He might wait a while for a review of that book to be published in a "peer-reviewed trade journal" in biochemistry; "peer-reviewed" and "trade journal" don't usually describe the same thing. For example the trade journal for the American Chemical Society is Chemical and Engineering News , and a relevant ACS peer-reviewed journal for a biochemist would be Biochemistry. I don't recall seeing a book review in either one of those...

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Since you have Behe’s book why don’t you write a review of Carrol’s review?

If you think you’re not qualified then that is precisely the point. To critique Carrol’s critique one should be qualified to critique the original work....The fact that they used a blog loudmouth/computer science expert to review the work of a biochemist in the field of biochemistry looks suspiciously like the book can’t be criticized by an expert in biochemistry.

(Rubs eyes) Did he really just say that?

Are the UDistas trying the JA Davison tactic of Internet playground name calling by refusing to use Mark's actual last name, Chu-Carroll?

No doubt that the tree is only a thousand years old, but God is testing us by making the tree look old.

This article deserves its own thread, BTW.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

No doubt that the tree is only a thousand years old, but God is testing us by making the tree look old.

WRONG!! The tree is probably closer to 4000 years old. The article starts:

Quote

ALBANY, New York (AP) -- The tree stood tall and spindly in the hot sun some 380 million years ago when something toppled it, maybe a storm or an earthquake.

OR A FLUD!!!11!1!

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Are there any anti-ID writings, no matter how ill-conceived or mean-spirited, that PT won't endorse? It might be an interesting exercise to attempt a Sokal-style hoax to see what exactly PT is prepared to believe about ID. I herewith offer a prize, worth up to $200, to anyone who can pull this off and afterward reveal that it was all a hoax (the precise amount to be determined by how cleverly it is pulled off).

too bad he didn't make that offer to 'darwinists' who did the same thing, over and over again, on OE.

seems it's quite easy to "slip one by" them.

more projection on WD40's part, resulting in yet another ill-advised wager.

That’s the bottom line. Or, perhaps more precisely, that’s the closed circle: science is applied naturalism; if you challenge naturalism, you’re not a scientist; and those who are not scientists do not deserve tenure in academic departments of science. Simple as that.

Well, Paul, if you observe some phenomenon, especially an astronomical one, and then your explanation for the phenomenon is "God did it," you won't make it very far in a science career. Can you see the seminar talk? or the papers that would come from this theory? It would most likely sound like Deepak Chopra on acid.